(a) The liability to pay value-added tax, in cases where scrap metal is supplied under the name of another person;

B. Whether the purport of seeking nullification of the tax disposition can be deemed to be included in the claim seeking revocation of the tax disposition (negative)

A. In collecting and selling scrap metal, a person who trades the delivery name under the name of another person shall be the actual and actual subject of attribution of the transaction. Therefore, in light of the principle of substantial taxation, the person is liable to pay value-added tax following the transaction.

B. A claim for revocation of a taxation disposition cannot be deemed to include the purport of seeking confirmation of invalidity, and there is no obligation to explain whether to seek confirmation of invalidity.

(a) Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 70Nu30 Decided May 26, 1970, Supreme Court Decision 81Nu424 Decided June 22, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu117 delivered on November 17, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Reviewing the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the following facts are revealed: (a) when the Plaintiff collected scrap metal and supplied and sold scrap metal equivalent to KRW 2,909,472,810 to the Incheon Steel Industries Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff traded the name of delivery by borrowing the name of delivery from the name of the North Korean Site Book of the Korean Reading Center, which is an incorporated association; and (b) there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the deliberation of evidence or fact-finding by the court below

Therefore, since the above transaction shall be deemed to belong to the plaintiff in substance and in fact, under the principle of substantial taxation, the judgment of the court below that the value-added tax is liable to pay to the plaintiff under the principle of substantial taxation is just and it cannot be said that there is no misapprehension of legal principles

2. In this case, since it is apparent that the plaintiff sought the revocation of the disposition of taxation, the court below does not have a duty to further examine whether the plaintiff seeks the revocation of the disposition of taxation, and it does not include the purport of seeking the nullification of the disposition of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu424, Jun. 22, 1982). This argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)